|
Is Raw Food Superior to Cooked
Food?
By Don Bennett, DAS
Just
as there are many different diets, there are many different opinions
about each one. And although everyone is entitled to their own
opinions, everyone is not entitled to their own facts. But because
of personal preferences and biases, especially when mixed with
arrogance and ego, there are a lot of opinions masquerading as
facts when it comes to raw food diets education.
I
say "diets" plural, because here too, there is not agreement
on which raw food diet is best, even though logic dictates there
is one, assuming the criteria is that you want the best health
possible, now and in the future. But this is another article.
First,
before addressing the merits of this topic, I think it's a good
idea to have an understanding of why some people, and indeed some
educators, would contend that it's just fine to eat some cooked
food (again, we're assuming that those considering a raw food
diet are doing so because they want the best health their genetics
will allow them to have). Obviously, if you can have equally robust
health eating an all-raw diet as you can eating a diet that contains,
say, 20% cooked food, then why not eat a "high raw"
diet? It'll make it easier to fit in with friends and family,
and easier to go out to eat.
Hypothetically,
if, in reality, a "high raw" diet is not superior to
an all-raw diet, in that a mostly raw diet will not allow you
to have the best odds of avoiding degenerative disease throughout
your entire life, then why is there this false equivalency?
1)
Personal preference
Some people simply want to believe that they can eat some cooked
food, and it won't make any difference in their health. When those
eating a mostly raw, all vegan diet hear someone say that the
cooked food portion can be vegan or not vegan and it doesn't matter
from a health perspective, they know that this person is fooling
themselves, and this person is merely believing what they want
to believe so they can eat what they want to eat. No argument
there; lots of people who don't want to eat an all vegan diet
do this. But this confirmation bias is not exclusive to the vegan/animal
debate; the fact that I have to write this article is proof of
that. So personal preference can color the judgment of even the
most intelligent person, thus affecting their ability to think
about an issue with an eye towards reality. So if you are investigating
this aspect of the raw food diet (high-raw vs all-raw), it would
be good to take the possibility of "colored judgment"
into account, even when listening to the popular raw food educators
(because they are human too).
2)
A desire to promote veganism
While veganism has tons of positives associated with it –
better for the planet, for all the animals on the planet including
humans, and all future humans – there is one undeniable negative.
When staunch vegans contend that a vegan diet is the healthiest
diet you can eat, and then say in the same breath that it doesn't
have to consist of only raw fruits and veggies, and they go further
to say that there is no evidence that an all-raw vegan diet is
any better than a vegan diet that contains cooked food and fake
meats and soy ice cream, this does a disservice to anyone who
is considering a vegan diet because they want the best chance
of healing their serious illness or want the best odds of never
getting one.
Educators
who are vegans "first and foremost" know that they will
get more converts to veganism if people can eat the same meals
they've always eaten, and this includes cooked foods. And while
this is true, I'd ask, why can't these educators simply be honest
with people, and explain that – just as with diets in general
– there are poor, fair, good, better, and best vegan diets.
And then they can go on to explain what they are, and add that
which vegan diet you choose should depend on how healthy you want
to be. But most vegan educators don't do that. They want to be
seen as promoting the best diet, and they don't
want to describe their diet as the second best vegan diet since
that's the one that many people would want to eat; the educator
wants their diet to be perceived as the best diet because this
will help garner the most converts, even if in reality, it is
the second best diet. But this is not being honest with those
they educate. And I've heard them rationalize their approach by
saying, "Yeh, but I'll get more people to convert to vegansim
this way." And when I ask, "But what about the people
who are looking for the healthiest diet?", their response
is usually, "But they'll be healthier." Folks,
"healthier" is not the same as "healthiest".
And if it turns out that "healthiest" is required for
the person to completely resolve their ill health and stay
healthy for the remainder of their life, which is their goal,
by withholding that information, educators do them a disservice.
3)
The educator in question can't successfully eat an all-raw
diet
Most educators don't want to seem hypocritical; they don't want
to teach that an all-raw fruit-based vegan diet is the healthiest
diet to eat if they can't manage to eat this way. And it doesn't
matter why they can't (there are both physiological and psychological
reasons), what matters is they don't want to appear to be a hypocrite,
so instead they describe the diet they are able to eat (or choose
to eat) as thee best diet. And if it's a high-raw vegan diet,
and if they are good at promoting their work, what they teach
becomes popular... even though it's incorrect information. Those
educators who know that there is a healthier diet to teach possibly
justify their actions because of how many people will experience
improved health by changing to a much healthier diet than what
they had been eating. But this is not being honest.
4)
It's what they've always taught
If an educator has been teaching something for decades, such as,
"Once you start eating enough fruits and vegetables you
don't have to worry about nutrition", but then it becomes
known that this is not necessarily true, if they're a proper educator,
they will research the new info, and if it is found to be credible,
they will adjust what they teach, and in this case, they will
announce to their followers that what they had been teaching was
incorrect. But if the educator has a big ego and sees no reason
to peer-to-peer with educators who are their colleagues, or if
he/she is afraid that making such an announcement will negatively
impact their credibility, they will likely dig in their heels
and continue to teach what they've always taught, and even attempt
to discredit the new information if it starts gaining traction
among the community. This is sad, but it is also human nature.
And this is why I recommend vetting, not just the information
that someone is teaching, but also the person who is teaching
it. If they're found to have a large ego, this can affect the
accuracy of what they teach.
5)
Where's the studies?
Some vegan educators do not consider a raw food diet an option
because they contend there are, as of yet, no studies that confirm
the superiority of the diet. These "academic" educators
rely on placebo-controlled, double-blinded, peer-reviewed studies
and studies published in scientific journals. And that's all well
and good, but these kinds of studies are not the only tools available
to a researcher; we can also use logic, rational, critical thinking,
and empirical evidence. Plus, being that there are
actual studies which
show the superiority of eating uncooked foods, it's possible that
the "there aren't any studies yet" is more of
an excuse than an actual reason, and that they do this because
of #2 above (the desire to convert as many people as possible
to a vegan diet).
6)
The desire to be popular because it generates more money
We can't leave this topic without considering another reason why
some educators promote a high-raw diet, contending that it is
just as healthy as an all-raw diet. But since these educators
usually appear to be very sincere, down-to-earth, caring, honest,
etc., it's difficult if not impossible for some people to tell
them apart from the actual sincere, down-to-earth, caring, honest
educators. And so these "educators" are very convincing,
and, unfortunately, very popular, yet their information is flawed
even though tons of people believe it to be 100% accurate. The
moral? The most popular information is not necessarily the most
correct information. This is why I recommend learning as a researcher
and not as a student.
Don Bennett
is an insightful, reality-based author, and health creation counselor
who uses the tools in his toolbox – logic, common sense,
critical thinking, and independent thought – to figure out
how to live so you can be optimally healthy. More about Don's
books, which explain why a raw food diet is indeed superior to
a "high-raw" diet, at health101.org/books
Back
to Articles page
|
